First off, this post will contain some serious spoilers for The Witcher 2 and some minor ones for 3. So don't read this if you don't want to get spoiled.
I'm currently playing through The Witcher 3 a second time (just in time for Blood & Wine) while reading the books and after (re)playing Witcher 1 and 2. Because of this, the second time is probably even better than the first because now I understand so much more of the lore, backstory and many of the characters. That said, it also unveils a few things that are, well, not so great about Witcher 3's story and characterization. The main thing that stoud out to me was the fact that several very important characters are just missing in the third game for unknown reasons.
Now I know what you're thinking: this is about Iorveth and Saskia, but it isn't. With those two I can understand why they wouldn't be near the locations The Witcher 3 is set in and at least CD Projekt Red provided an explanation for Saskia with Hearts of Stone. No, my gripe is with John Natalis and, even more importantly, Anaïs la Valette. Both characters are incredibly important to the fate of Temeria after The Witcher 2. Two out of three endings that mention Natalis have him ending up as Temeria's regent and Anaïs is the last direct heir to Foltest and can end up with Natalis, Radovid or Roche. In The Witcher 3 Natalis is mentioned in an offhand comment as being "missing" and Anaïs is never mentioned again. I found this incredibly odd, especially since the story of The Witcher 3 (and also that of the series in general) is all about the fate of Temeria.I seriously can't get my head around why CD Projekt Red would choose to completely omit these characters from the game, even though they should play a major role in the fate of the Northern Kingdoms.
So, how does GAF feel about this? And do you have any other examples of great games that had headscratchers like this in it's story or gameplay?
I'm currently playing through The Witcher 3 a second time (just in time for Blood & Wine) while reading the books and after (re)playing Witcher 1 and 2. Because of this, the second time is probably even better than the first because now I understand so much more of the lore, backstory and many of the characters. That said, it also unveils a few things that are, well, not so great about Witcher 3's story and characterization. The main thing that stoud out to me was the fact that several very important characters are just missing in the third game for unknown reasons.
Now I know what you're thinking: this is about Iorveth and Saskia, but it isn't. With those two I can understand why they wouldn't be near the locations The Witcher 3 is set in and at least CD Projekt Red provided an explanation for Saskia with Hearts of Stone. No, my gripe is with John Natalis and, even more importantly, Anaïs la Valette. Both characters are incredibly important to the fate of Temeria after The Witcher 2. Two out of three endings that mention Natalis have him ending up as Temeria's regent and Anaïs is the last direct heir to Foltest and can end up with Natalis, Radovid or Roche. In The Witcher 3 Natalis is mentioned in an offhand comment as being "missing" and Anaïs is never mentioned again. I found this incredibly odd, especially since the story of The Witcher 3 (and also that of the series in general) is all about the fate of Temeria.I seriously can't get my head around why CD Projekt Red would choose to completely omit these characters from the game, even though they should play a major role in the fate of the Northern Kingdoms.
So, how does GAF feel about this? And do you have any other examples of great games that had headscratchers like this in it's story or gameplay?